sirpuma
Regular Member
Why are you on this forum, again?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...
- Thread starter Freedom First
- Start date
Why are you on this forum, again?
Batousaii
Regular Member
~ LoL, Been working on it actually ~
I see "well regulated militia" to mean the militia is regulated in accordance to the Enumeration of Powers. Meaning Congress gets to decide how to organize/arm the militia.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Well regulated means functioning properly. The 2A says, in other words, that in order for the people to have a properly functioning militia the people need to be able to posses and carry weapons and the federal government shall not infringe in the people's right to keep and bear arms. Notice I said for the people to have a properly functioning militia, it is not and never was and never will be the federal governments militia.
Keep in mind that the federal government has already majorly infringed on the 2A so to understand the 2A completely you have to start at the beginning not where we are now or even 50 years ago.
Remember the Bill of Rights puts limits on the government.
If the founding fathers had wanted to give Congress the power to regulate what arms the militia could carry they would have said so.
Last edited:
They did leave somewhat ambiguious phrasing:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
In the beginning.
We were colonies.
We were armed for our personnal defense.
The term "well regulated" meant a certain thing.
We, were required to own guns, and balls, and powder.
We were required to bring them with us on Sunday, when we went to church.
We were required to assemble, drill, and target practice after services.
We were a "Well Regulated Malitia"
In the beginning.
We were colonies.
We were armed for our personnal defense.
The term "well regulated" meant a certain thing.
We, were required to own guns, and balls, and powder.
We were required to bring them with us on Sunday, when we went to church.
We were required to assemble, drill, and target practice after services.
We were a "Well Regulated Malitia"
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Reread the 2A with original understanding, don't forge that it's a law restricting the Federal government including congress.
We have to let go of indoctrination that has been going on since...well since the founding.
You are reading to much into it.
IF you were head of the neighborhood watch, and your document said you can call forth the other neighbors to fight crime and provide them with tazers....would that have anything to do with having any control over your neighbors and their tazers?
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Nothing ambiguous about it at all when you use all the wording
The Congress shall have the power [snip];To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The Congress shall have the power[snip]; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
You seem to be mixing up two entirely different things i.e. powers granted to Congress and the 2A, stop stretching and read each item for its own merit.
Last edited:
And the reason congress has the power to call the Militia is because we are not supposed to have or fund a standing army as per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.
We the citizen militia are supposed to be the army for the United States.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Not exactly, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 Congress was allowed to raise an army but only for two years. That army may or may not be partially or wholly made up of the citizen militia. It was quite common at that time to hire mercenaries to do the fighting.
Last edited:
rapgood
Regular Member
I love this forum
I have read (particularly in this thread) some very well thought out arguments for interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the very questions with which the courts struggle every day; both in interpretation and in applicability.
As I have mentioned to several of you, and several have noticed, I rarely speak in absolutes. I may offer an opinion on some particular aspect of the Constitution and BoR, but I am always careful to try to phrase it in terms of it being my opinion. The only things that may be somewhat "absolutes" I give are in the interpretation and applicability of non-constitutional questions.
This thread reminds me of the never-ending study of Constitutional Law and the questions raised by those who are studying it. There is only one thing re: the Constitution and BoR about which I am absolute; there are no absolutes in the interpretation of them. Look how frequently members of even the U.S. Supreme Court and state Supreme Courts disagree with each other on constitutional interpretation. The best lesson, I believe, that any of us can learn from this study is that there are no absolutes WRT the Constitution and BoR. I wish there were. It would make lawyers' and judges' lives infinitely easier.
But I do enjoy reading all of your comments and interpretations. They require me to again evaluate the particular words and phrases used by the framers when the Constitution and BoR were written, and continue my efforts to understand them.
I have read (particularly in this thread) some very well thought out arguments for interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the very questions with which the courts struggle every day; both in interpretation and in applicability.
As I have mentioned to several of you, and several have noticed, I rarely speak in absolutes. I may offer an opinion on some particular aspect of the Constitution and BoR, but I am always careful to try to phrase it in terms of it being my opinion. The only things that may be somewhat "absolutes" I give are in the interpretation and applicability of non-constitutional questions.
This thread reminds me of the never-ending study of Constitutional Law and the questions raised by those who are studying it. There is only one thing re: the Constitution and BoR about which I am absolute; there are no absolutes in the interpretation of them. Look how frequently members of even the U.S. Supreme Court and state Supreme Courts disagree with each other on constitutional interpretation. The best lesson, I believe, that any of us can learn from this study is that there are no absolutes WRT the Constitution and BoR. I wish there were. It would make lawyers' and judges' lives infinitely easier.
But I do enjoy reading all of your comments and interpretations. They require me to again evaluate the particular words and phrases used by the framers when the Constitution and BoR were written, and continue my efforts to understand them.
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
Rapgood,
I agree 100%. Your comments remind me of a law Prof I had in college. I have posted this here before. His statement was "There is only one positive in law. That is, nothing is positive in law" Leonard Stiles LLB, dr of Juris prudence, Ret FBI.
I agree 100%. Your comments remind me of a law Prof I had in college. I have posted this here before. His statement was "There is only one positive in law. That is, nothing is positive in law" Leonard Stiles LLB, dr of Juris prudence, Ret FBI.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
I agree 100%, threads like this make me and others think, they prepare us for so that we may logically present our case when needed. Without this site I would have been woefully under prepared to exercise my rights and remain a free man.
Thanks to all who participate even when you are flat out wrong, will not listen and refuse to immediately adopt my position, LOL
Freedom First
Regular Member
Been reading some more Frank Herbert. That Washington resident was a wise old man. Every chapter starts with a fictional quote rendering some truth that relates to the subject of the chapter. A couple that relate to the original topic here:
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
"When the means of great violence are widespread, nothing is more dangerous to the powerful than that they create outrage and injustice, for outrage and injustice will certainly ignite retaliation in kind."
"Does a populace have informed consent when a ruling minority acts in secret to ignite a war, doing this to justify the existence of the minority’s forces? History already has answered that question. Every society in the ConSentiency today reflects the historical judgment that failure to provide full information for informed consent on such an issue represents as ultimate crime."
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
"When the means of great violence are widespread, nothing is more dangerous to the powerful than that they create outrage and injustice, for outrage and injustice will certainly ignite retaliation in kind."
"Does a populace have informed consent when a ruling minority acts in secret to ignite a war, doing this to justify the existence of the minority’s forces? History already has answered that question. Every society in the ConSentiency today reflects the historical judgment that failure to provide full information for informed consent on such an issue represents as ultimate crime."
Last edited:
bobzilla05
Regular Member
I spoke to an in-training Marine recently about Chain of Command versus Morality, and his responses were extremely shocking to me. I asked him, on United States soil, would he fire upon an unarmed man simply because his 'superior' ordered him to do so. He replied a firm yes, without question. His reasoning was because he 'could not know whether or not it was a terrorist.'
These are the types of people employed in the current tyrannical military. This is not a reasonable, responsible citizen. This is a tool. Who aims that tool?
A citizen militia is what we need to reinstate. It is time to water the tree of liberty.
These are the types of people employed in the current tyrannical military. This is not a reasonable, responsible citizen. This is a tool. Who aims that tool?
A citizen militia is what we need to reinstate. It is time to water the tree of liberty.
Last edited:
oneeyeross
Regular Member
The operative part of your statement. In-training marine means he has no clue what he is doing yet. Let him season a bit and he'll be ok....I would venture to say that he would never be given that order by an NCO, or at least the jar-head NCOs I've known would never allow it to happen...
I know an Army NCO wouldn't give that order....
RHF
SSG USA (Ret)
bobzilla05
Regular Member
I understand that he has not seen field time yet, but the fact that he already has such an attitude ingrained in his mind makes me fear for the safety of my self and others around me should such a scenario arise. The military trains people to not be people. It trains them to just follow orders and be a tool for their commanding officers to use, which in turn are used by their commanding officers. What concerns me is that he acted as if he would have no accountability for his action in such event. "Just do; do not ask why" attitude.
I would sincerely hope that order would never be given. It is the principle that is important here.
Last edited:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
I know several Marine NCOs and none of them would issue that order, none would allow that order to be carried out. I also know for a fact the Marine NCOs are instructed on how to disobey an unlawful order. The Marines are the least of our worries if the SHTF.